4 ms·

I think I'd prefer a world where there were fewer remakes and adaptations of existing franchises, and people focused on coming up with new things instead. I'm n

I think I'd prefer a world where there were fewer remakes and adaptations of existing franchises, and people focused on coming up with new things instead. I'm not suggesting that copyright should be extended for that purpose.

larsiusprime 5y ago
Arguably the reasons there are more remakes and adaptations of existing franchises is specifically for value to accrue to those IP's, in a very siloed and narrow way with minimal cross-pollination across brand ownership lines.
password1 5y ago
The problem with remakes and adaptations of existing franchises is that they all basically follow the same safe and tested structure. So they are boring and feel all the same because they basically are. I might argue that this phenomenon is too a byproduct of copyrights. In a world were everyone can create interesting things on any IP, there's no market for cookie-cutter adaptations. People watch cookie-cutter adaptations and remakes because it's the only way to experience the characters and worlds they like. If they had another option they probably just skip the reboot and go watch the new take from a different studio or director.
netcan 5y ago
Both can coexist. Consider that Greek mythology or Irish fairy stories are basically different stories in the same "cinematic universe." But... that universe isn't a monopoly. Many authors contributed. Stories were tailored to different audiences. The cliche blockbuster remakes are corny because they are, but the concept of remakes, universes and sequels isn't bad.
imgabe 5y ago
Remakes and adaptations are a timeless part of storytelling though. Having a template for a popular story with the freedom to adapt it to a new time period and audience is how we transmit our culture. For example: Pygmalion (Greek myth) -> Pygmalion (Shaw play) -> My Fair Lady -> She's All That Hamlet -> The Lion King The Odyssey -> O Brother Where Art Thou (and countless others) Emma (Jane Austen) -> Clueless
- s-lambert 5y ago
  But wouldn't these adaptations still be allowed even if the original was copyrighted? Hamlet -> The Lion King has similarities but there's enough differences that even if Hamlet were copyrighted it'd still be allowed as a separate work of art.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    They might be. NAL, but if a work is sufficiently transformative I think you can argue that copyright doesn’t apply. You might have to go through an expensive lawsuit to get to that point though. Copyright has a chilling effect too. My wife is an art historian and publishes academic papers and books on contemporary art. Many times the artists are still alive and she’ll need their permission to reproduce an image of their artwork. Technically, reproducing something for commentary or criticism, especially in an academic or educational context, would fall under fair use. But no publisher is going to risk having to defend that in court, certainly not for an academic work that isn’t going to make any money, so in practice you have to obtain (often expensive) reproduction rights from the rights holders.
Sevaris 5y ago
A lot of what made Disney so beloved is remaking and adapting existing works. There's nothing inherently wrong with the act of remixing, it is in fact the driver and source of a lot of great culture we've had the honor of experiencing over hundreds, thousands of years (yet particularly in the past 50). What I don't understand why people seem to think Disney alone should benefit from existing works, and nobody else. Or that copyright being restricted to a single entity is the best way to ensure "good" works being produced.

larsiusprime 5y ago

Arguably the reasons there are more remakes and adaptations of existing franchises is specifically for value to accrue to those IP's, in a very siloed and narrow way with minimal cross-pollination across brand ownership lines.

password1 5y ago

The problem with remakes and adaptations of existing franchises is that they all basically follow the same safe and tested structure. So they are boring and feel all the same because they basically are. I might argue that this phenomenon is too a byproduct of copyrights. In a world were everyone can create interesting things on any IP, there's no market for cookie-cutter adaptations. People watch cookie-cutter adaptations and remakes because it's the only way to experience the characters and worlds they like. If they had another option they probably just skip the reboot and go watch the new take from a different studio or director.

netcan 5y ago

Both can coexist. Consider that Greek mythology or Irish fairy stories are basically different stories in the same "cinematic universe." But... that universe isn't a monopoly. Many authors contributed. Stories were tailored to different audiences. The cliche blockbuster remakes are corny because they are, but the concept of remakes, universes and sequels isn't bad.

imgabe 5y ago

Remakes and adaptations are a timeless part of storytelling though. Having a template for a popular story with the freedom to adapt it to a new time period and audience is how we transmit our culture. For example: Pygmalion (Greek myth) -> Pygmalion (Shaw play) -> My Fair Lady -> She's All That Hamlet -> The Lion King The Odyssey -> O Brother Where Art Thou (and countless others) Emma (Jane Austen) -> Clueless

s-lambert 5y ago
But wouldn't these adaptations still be allowed even if the original was copyrighted? Hamlet -> The Lion King has similarities but there's enough differences that even if Hamlet were copyrighted it'd still be allowed as a separate work of art.
- imgabe 5y ago
  They might be. NAL, but if a work is sufficiently transformative I think you can argue that copyright doesn’t apply. You might have to go through an expensive lawsuit to get to that point though. Copyright has a chilling effect too. My wife is an art historian and publishes academic papers and books on contemporary art. Many times the artists are still alive and she’ll need their permission to reproduce an image of their artwork. Technically, reproducing something for commentary or criticism, especially in an academic or educational context, would fall under fair use. But no publisher is going to risk having to defend that in court, certainly not for an academic work that isn’t going to make any money, so in practice you have to obtain (often expensive) reproduction rights from the rights holders.

Sevaris 5y ago

A lot of what made Disney so beloved is remaking and adapting existing works. There's nothing inherently wrong with the act of remixing, it is in fact the driver and source of a lot of great culture we've had the honor of experiencing over hundreds, thousands of years (yet particularly in the past 50). What I don't understand why people seem to think Disney alone should benefit from existing works, and nobody else. Or that copyright being restricted to a single entity is the best way to ensure "good" works being produced.